|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Converting protected files unethical? - 10/28/2009 9:04:10 PM
|
|
|
Random
Posts: 753
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Zipperhead
Status: offline
|
Ok, so I am a subscriber to audible and I listen to 2 or 3 audiobooks a month. When I download the books they come in a proprietary format created by audible.
I use tunebite to convert the files to mp3. Then I use audacity to re-encode the files at 1.6 speed. I do this because I think regular speaking voice is too slow, and I get distracted. By speeding it up I am able to pay closer attention AND "read" more books. For those that are curious, Audacity pitch shifts the mp3, so it does NOT sound like chipmunks. Because of the proprietary file format, most mp3 players can't speed up audible files, and the ones that can don't pitch-shift. I can follow 1.6 speed if it is pitch-shifted, but if it's not, it's too fast, plus it's annoying to listen to the little chipmunks.
When I am done listening to the audiobook, I don't forward or share it, I simply delete it. I simply circumvent DRM to be able to listen to it faster.
Once you get used to 1.6 speed, regular speed sounds even slower, so I am not going to stop doing this. But I am interested in people's thoughts. Is this wrong? Is it unethical? Is it considered fair use? If not, should it be?
P.S. On the rare occasion I download an audiobook from the library, I do the same thing. But I listen to it before the lending period is up, and since you can't return downloads early anyway, I'm not holding up the person in line behind me.
_____________________________
Check out my blog:
http://finance4nerds.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Converting protected files unethical? - 10/28/2009 9:22:42 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Random
Ok, so I am a subscriber to audible and I listen to 2 or 3 audiobooks a month. When I download the books they come in a proprietary format created by audible.
I use tunebite to convert the files to mp3. Then I use audacity to re-encode the files at 1.6 speed. I do this because I think regular speaking voice is too slow, and I get distracted. By speeding it up I am able to pay closer attention AND "read" more books. For those that are curious, Audacity pitch shifts the mp3, so it does NOT sound like chipmunks. Because of the proprietary file format, most mp3 players can't speed up audible files, and the ones that can don't pitch-shift. I can follow 1.6 speed if it is pitch-shifted, but if it's not, it's too fast, plus it's annoying to listen to the little chipmunks.
When I am done listening to the audiobook, I don't forward or share it, I simply delete it. I simply circumvent DRM to be able to listen to it faster.
Once you get used to 1.6 speed, regular speed sounds even slower, so I am not going to stop doing this. But I am interested in people's thoughts. Is this wrong? Is it unethical? Is it considered fair use? If not, should it be?
P.S. On the rare occasion I download an audiobook from the library, I do the same thing. But I listen to it before the lending period is up, and since you can't return downloads early anyway, I'm not holding up the person in line behind me.
I think the purpose of the law against reproducing files is supposed to apply to reproducing them for the purpose of redistribution. I have wondered the same thing myself. I have a few DVDs that I borrowed. I don't want to retain possession of a reproduced copy of something after returning it. I am merely worried sometimes that I won't give back the original to the owner and therefore might lose it.
You might think of it like being able to create a back up copy or in your case, a "lent" back up copy. Anyway, legally you might be in violation but ethically you probably aren't.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Converting protected files unethical? - 10/28/2009 9:44:55 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4166
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
I don't see a problem with it. I frequently convert video files into a different format so that I can load them onto my mp3 player to watch on my commute. In fact, the player itself came with software to convert video into a format that the player can read. I'm like you--I delete when I'm done with them so that they don't take up space anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Converting protected files unethical? - 10/29/2009 3:39:20 PM
|
|
|
kd4hvz
Posts: 174
Joined: 11/2/2006
From: Bedford, VA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ta_mosquito
It's the spirit vs. the letter of the law.
Bingo! While I can argue either way, depending on circumstances, I try to err on the side of the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is open to interpretation, opinion, and (sometimes false) justification. The letter of the law provides a common ground that seldom leaves room for excuses.
In the context of what you are talking about, there is no question it violates federal law. But no harm done and no profits lost at their end makes honoring the spirit of the law very appealing on all levels, and seems reasonable. It just depends on how high of a standard we want to hold to.
Personally, I take a similar position that you do.
_____________________________
-Michael in beautiful Bedford, VA
[http://www.kd4hvz.com/]
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
MARRIED TO A MILITARY PILOT ~ PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR TROOPS! 
